Capitalism is bad and more specifically, greed is bad. I see sound bites of people like Michael Moore, who is a perfect picture of gluttony worth millions of dollars, saying that capitalism is the culprit and needs to go. I see pictures of protestors supporting the president of the United States, as if part of some organized campaign, and even see President Obama, who has given trillions of taxpayer money to bailout these suspect banks, sending his verbal support to these individuals braving the cold and police on the streets. I see these things and think: Is this Occupy Wall Street the real deal?

As far as capitalism being the villain, I would argue we have not lived in a capitalist society for quite some time now. The majority of the U.S. government’s budget goes to social programs, much of which has expanded exponentially since President Obama has taken office. Nearly 50 percent of the nation’s budget, which is taxpayer money or on loan from some foreign nation, goes back to the people in some extremely inefficient and wasteful way. I do not know what constitutes a “true” capitalist or socialist economy, but I would say that we are leaning more towards the latter, or some bastardized form of capitalisocialism.

But, we do not want to talk about that. We have been indoctrinated that socialism is evil and capitalism is the only way for a free and open society to operate. I agree with this. I believe that socialism and communism are too easily corrupted, and we only have to look to Europe for this, as nations riot and the European Union systematically collapses. But the kicker with that statement is that capitalism is also corruptible. There is no “free” market in the United States anymore (or the world for that matter). If you invest in the stock market, you can just as easily put your cash in an envelope and set it on fire. You would get the same results. The stock market has become a carnival game. You lose before you play.

And that is Wall Street. The other contender in the economy is the Federal Reserve. This is a private bank, the Federal Reserve, dictating all banking activities throughout the nation. What a great position to be in. This private bank controls the interest rates on all of our loans, who can or cannot open bank accounts, and secretly uses our collective money (in the form of taxes) to bailout foreign banks – all backed by the United States government. They have the ability to print money on demand, the United States Dollar which is currently the world’s reserve currency, and they have quite a few times in the past year and a half, flooding the market with more currency and devaluing it along the way. This is done on behalf of the United States government, but more importantly, for the welfare of United States citizens.

So, why are they sitting outside of Wall Street? Why are they protesting the fact that greed may be bad, even though we are by nature greedy? Why are they not outside of Congress, protesting the fact that they support and further the financial degradation of the American Dream? This collective frustration is not about capitalism vs. socialism or democrat vs. republican, but more about an economy directed to hurt the very people it is designed to support. We have been passive to a government that allows these predatory activities by private banking entities; we have been passive to the fact that Congress paid trillions of our taxpayer dollars to banks that would not say where the money went.

We have been passive to a government that has sent our industries overseas. Now we are unemployed with the hot breath of poverty breathing down our necks, and only now, after all the economy-crippling activities that the government has done over the past twenty years, are we ready to protest. I am glad you woke up America, but why Occupy Wall Street?

My commute gives me the rare chance of reflection, my alone time, to think and plan my day. It gives me a chance to catch up on the music and books that my school/work/family schedule does not allow me to partake in. I also listen to the news, mostly National Public Radio because my choices are limited. Most of the recent reports are about the revolution in Libya or the upcoming presidential election. But the real news trend seems to be the economy.

I believe that the economy dictates the standards of a society. We already know it dictates our standard of living, but it also sets our social standards. In thriving times, the finer things stand out: art, music and the like. As the economy goes down, crime seems to go up, along with an emerging class seperation: The haves and have-nots. And this is happening now. Crime, theft and break-ins are the by-product of a floundering economy. “The Great Recession,” as it is called now, is upon us and discussions revolve.

What is a great recession and whatever does this mean for me?

I think about this during my drive sometimes. How does this recession affect me? I am pretty carefree, for the most part. I seem to have opportunities. I am a non-traditional student coming back to school after a ten-year break and am motivated to get my degree as quickly as possible. In fact, this college experience takes kind of a backseat because my goals require all of my time. So, I am left pondering the future. Will the career path that I have chosen actually pay off? Will my time attending and graduating a secondary institution allow me to live the life I want? And more importantly, will I be able to do the things I am going to school for?

I listened to a report the other day that highlighted college graduates. The report stated that one of the highest demographic in defaults for loans are college graduates, and non-graduates, who cannot pay their student loans. I have had a student loan bill for over ten years now and never knew that there was even an option to default, but evidentially there is. So I think about this and wonder, “What the hell is driving so many recent graduates to default on their loans?”

Is it the job market? Possibly.

Is it the economy as a whole? Probably.

Is it the overall, manic-depressive environment that Americans seem to live in? Could be.

The reality is this potentially crippling situation contains a multitude of probabilities and they are not good. We now see riots and demonstrations almost everyday in parts of the Eurozone, which at one point was a model of progression. Their economy is now an utter disaster.

I wonder when will it sink in to us that very soon this may happen here.

In fact, the way the trends are moving; it may already be happening. Most of the economic pains result in the staggeringly high levels of unemployment of the youth. This August in the United Kingdom, riots literally crippled the nation. It was menacingly unpredictable and admonished by many leaders within their nation. Some said thugs and opportunists caused the riots. Others said it was “bad parenting” to those reckless youth who were looting, burning and destroying.

Reckless youth. I think that is a great term, just not in this context. But why are they reckless?

One can only guess, but out of these ashes, the pain and frustration of this gray and dark future smolders in the thoughts and minds of those young men and women. What will happen in this near future depends on the will of those in charge, those captains of industry guiding this global economic Hindenberg. What will become of us then, we the hard-working youth aspiring to greatness both economically and socially? With one affecting the other, we remain flexible, yet vigilant. Otherwise we risk drowning in a sea of despair.

Right now, we are still fighting a Global War on Terror against an enemy that is undefined after 10 years of continuous war. We identify Al Qaeda and the Taliban as the enemy in Afghanistan and insurgents in Iraq (which are mainly people fighting against U.S. occupation). The Taliban and “insurgents” are not terrorist organizations. It seems that Al Qaeda, who fights for a holy purpose, has become the number one target for much of our fighting rhetoric. But they fight for religious reasons. Does that make the Global War on Terror a religious war? We say no, but the enemy says yes. So what kind of war are we fighting?

We have spent the last 120 years influencing nations and toppling regimes for one reason or another, mostly economic, and we study these things in various classes year after year at SDSU. We talk about how terrible we have acted toward these nations and we are appalled as to how the U.S. could behave that way, when all we have to do now is turn on the TV set and watch it happen in real time. We are not helping the Libyan people by bombing them and we are not furthering democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan — although the media would have us believe this and they are very convincing.

I would propose one question toward this point: how critical are you of the things you see and hear? There are many avenues that the media assists the government’s (and corporations’) agendas because they benefit from this chaos of regime change. In order to get the people on board, they use the same tactics of patriotism and democracy against the “tyrants” that harbor “terrorists.” You could easily replace the term “terrorist” with “communist” from the Cold War era. But because this tactic has been played out a couple of generations now, some American people easily read between the lines.

So what we see now in our congressional arena is a distracting tactic causing division between the “left” and the “right.” Democrats versus. Republicans. This means that those who are staunch supports of either party will venomously fight against the other and this pits citizen against citizen and creates division among the American society.

Congress is like a WWF wrestling match, telling the American public that they are going to work hard to defeat the other’s plans and agenda’s, when their agendas are the same – the core agendas, anyway. Did we end the Global War on Terror – a war started by Republican Bush, with Democratic President Obama? No. There was another surge in Afghanistan and troops still continue to occupy Iraq. Now there is talk that our soldiers will stay there much longer than the projected withdrawal date of 2012. Did we close Guantanamo Bay where we torture and detain people indefinitely without officially charging them with anything? No. Closing Guantanamo Bay was one of the main things that Obama campaigned for, and he recently signed to keep it open, citing that it was not his fault and that too many in Congress were against him. That may be, but he is still the president of the United States of America with the support of the people behind him on that issue. Anything can be done with that combination. Did Obama repeal the USA PATRIOT Act? No. Obama just extended the funding for this a few weeks ago. And so on, and so on, and so on.

I am not a supporter of either party, and am critical of all leadership that puts the well-being of individuals within corporations ahead of the American public. There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes down to the important issues that affect not only the U.S., but the entire globe. Do you think the Middle East would be happy if Obama did the things he promised when he was campaigning? How about Europe and Asia? I know U.S. citizens would be.

And there are those that say that fighting there keeps terrorists away from here. I disagree. There is no nation in the world today that is 100 percent safe from extreme individuals who choose to utilize violence to further their means. Not one in the world. Fighting a war on the other side of the world that costs the nation greatly both financially and with the blood of our sons and daughters does not leave us more secure at home. In fact, it makes us less. We are strung out too thin with our physical presence in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we are using more resources to bomb Gaddafi’s men in Libya (even though we seem to bomb the rebels more). It just does not make sense.

These wars have nothing to do with keeping the U.S., and the world, safer and “terrorism” is just another boogieman to fight since the Cold War is over. Terrorism gives the U.S. an excuse to spend more money on military research and development and employ methods that ultimately take the power away from the people and gives it to our increasingly oppressive government.

Terrorism also provides the U.S. the lateral movement into any nation that we deem to harbor and assist terrorists. We can invade whoever we want with this mindset, and this means no end to the Global War on Terror unless congress changes.

Congress has the power to stop everything bad that is happening, but unfortunately, they are also the cause of everything bad that is happening.

Jon is a non-traditional student majoring in English. Reach him atjonathan.weiler@jacks.sdstate.edu

But are we at war? That is the tricky question. In order to officially go to war, Congress must approve it. Section 8 of Article One of the United States Constitution states: “The Congress shall have power to declare war, grant Letters of Marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

The ability to declare war was briefly out of the hands of Congress during the Vietnam War. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 gave power to then president Lyndon B. Johnson to use military force in Vietnam without the approval of Congress. After troops were pulled out, Congress made a decision to limit the power of the President with The War Powers Resolution of 1973 and this is what we go off of now. It states the limitation of the executive branch:

The constitutional powers of the president as commander-in-chief to introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to 1) a declaration of war, 2) specific statutory authorization, or 3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

While we are on the topic of war, was Iraq a legal action then? Yes, according to the above. Public Law 107-243: Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was approved October 16, 2002. So, invading Iraq was signed into law under The War Powers Resolution of 1973, making it constitutionally legal. Was it right to invade Iraq? That is for you to decide. The bottom line with the Iraq invasion is Congress made it law.

So, are the airstrikes in Libya lawful under The War Powers Resolution of 1973? It does not seem like it. It seems that the U.S. government is not following its own laws. Why is this? Are we attacking Libya because of the horrible atrocities being committed there with Gaddafi shooting protestors and calling airstrikes on his own people? That is bad, for sure. But why are we breaking our own laws to drop bombs there? There are certainly other governments in the region that have shot their own dissenting citizens, (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iran as an example) This is the case in Libya but does that mean the United States, with a “coalition” from the UN, should attack the country?

Is the killing of innocent people enough to create an Unconstitutional act of war? If innocent death were enough to create a war, why is it not enough to end a war? There are plenty of civilians dying in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, at this very moment. Sure, it is easy to support those fighting for freedom but why break Constitutional law? If this is illegal, and it most certainly seems to be, why is Congress standing idly by? We as citizens are bound and subject to our nation’s laws, the same as our legislators. It seems that we now have a government operating outside of the Constitution and this is a concerning thing. Is the U.S. government above the law?

Jon is a non-traditional student majoring in English. Reach him at jonathan.weiler@jacks.sdstate.edu